Healthcare cannot be fixed by Democrats or Republicans...

[kentuck]

...if they continue to look for solutions in the marketplace.

So long as there is a profit incentive, the costs will always continue to grow at unmanageable levels.

So long as insurance companies can continue to make billions off the misfortunes of others, we will never have a workable healthcare system.

The first step to fixing the healthcare system in this country is to remove the profit motive. There should be strict regulations and price controls on all aspects of healthcare. It is immoral to make a fortune off of the illnesses of our fellowman?

We need to remove the idea of "socialism" from our medical jargon. If our government can do a better job of handling the healthcare of our citizens, then we should use our government to that purpose. If we can pay doctors and nurses good salaries with the premiums from "Medicare-for-All", then we should not continue to let insurance companies rob us just so they can take care of their stockholders and CEOs.

Neither Party is going to fix healthcare until they face the reality that a person's health is not a commodity to be sold on the market like a new television set. We need to remove that component if we are ever to repair this mess we call "healthcare".

[Raven]

1. AMEN!!! n/t

[Roy Rolling]

33. "Market-based solution"

The GOP idea of a "market-based solution" is to guarantee profits to favored industries by short-circuiting market forces that affect them. And so it is doomed to failure.

Tens of millions of people on Medicare, but they cannot use their collective buying power to negotiate lower drug prices with drug companies?

[DefenseLawyer]

2. Absofuckinglutely n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

3. Completely agree!

[leftstreet]

4. DURec

[dmosh42]

5. The answers are in Europe, Japan and Canada, who have become smarter....

than us. in many ways. Notice that there are no countries saying "let's do it
like the United States"!

[IronLionZion]

9. Taiwan did it like the United States

They studied 10 different systems around the world and decided their national system shall be modeled after America's Medicare, but compulsory for all.

America already has single payer for our elderly. Why do old people get to have socialism? Because it's not profitable for private insurance to cover these expensive patients, that's why. Same with other expensive stuff like Veterans care or kidney disease that requires dialysis. Our taxes pay for these patients because the efficient private sector won't treat them otherwise.

[Nanjeanne]

26. Yes but the key is that Taiwan first decided

That it was a moral issue. First they decided their country was wealthy enough to have coverage for all its citizens as a right. Then they approached the problem from that morality and came up with the solution. This country refuses to come from that place so they will never find a solution that works. Because there is none. Until you remove profit for basic healthcare there are no solutions. Whether you go with the fully private but regulated prices of Switzerland, or the mainly public/additional private hybrid of other countries - believing in the morality of healthCARE for all must be the first step. Dems should be reframing the discussion and reclaiming the moral spine of the country.

[kentuck]

27. +100

[BumRushDaShow]

6. Yes but

they will be loathe to take the "profit motive" out of it. They have been at it too long and it has been a boon.

This is where the states will have to do it (which sort of lead us to the ACA, where several states like MA & TN had systems in place to use as pilots). But then the problem in that case is that some states would have nothing and others might have a good system, which is what lead to doing it at the federal level so everyone could benefit.

It will be a battle in any case. The opposition to Social Security was intense and is still happening 82 years later despite its popularity. Same with the 52-year old Medicare.

[lindysalsagal]

7. +1000 n/t.

[dlk]

8. Some Thing Should Not Be For Profit

Not everything works best with a for-profit model, as we see with our complicated and dysfunctional health care system. When did Americans decide that lining the pockets of the richest Americans, at the expense of everyone else, was best for our country?

[BadgerMom]

10. K & R

Agreed!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

11. There MUST be a PROFIT incentive.

But only a regulated one.

Regulated to be in line with other businesses that have an equivalent level of risk.

Profit is important for attracting creative dedicated people who innovate and improve.

The current rapacious levels of profit in the healthcare and pharma industries are way out of line and do not provide extra incentive to innovate. They must be reined in to reasonable levels. Just like municipal utilities and power services are regulated, so can healthcare be regulated.

There are several ways to accomplish this, but it must change. It is part of the larger problem of the INCREASING WAGE AND WEALTH DISPARITY.

[thesquanderer]

13. There are different kinds of profit.

No one is asking employees at hospitals to work for free. Doctors, nurses, staff should be well compensated for their skills, there needs to be money for new equipment, etc. I agree that healthcare should be profitable for those who actually provide healthcare (referencing your line, "Profit is important for attracting creative dedicated people who innovate and improve" etc.).

Where things go awry is when you have a system that provides profit to people who have no role in providing better healthcare... like stockholders looking for better returns on their investment, or insurance companies who provide no health care but instead make money by figuring out different ways to deny coverage.

[emmadoggy]

17. .

[Bernardo de La Paz]

25. Wages are not profit. They are a cost. But costs are influenced by the profit motive.

The profit incentive is also so a company that does innovate can pay somewhat higher wages. Profit motive can also drive wages down, but if a company makes them significantly lower than the rest of the sector (in a smoothly regulated sector) they won't be able to attract quality workers or afford to train them well and the company will begin to lose money until it becomes better managed (pays more normal wages).

Shareholders DO have a role. They provide money to invest in innovation. They punish poorly managed companies by withdrawing money.

Nothing is perfect, which is where regulation is needed. Some companies make more money by squeezing costs and STAKEholders excessively. But in a well regulated mostly free market, companies that go too far will not get customers.

[FakeNoose]

15. And don't forget lobbying

Insurance lobbying and PAC donations must be held in strict control.

Actually I'd like to see them banned altogether, but that probably can't happen.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

24. +1. Need regulated lobbying; sector needs representation just like teachers, small businesses etc.nt

[KPN]

44. Innovation and creativity will always result in profit though, will they not?

How would removing health care access from the marketplace impede this? Seems like the innovators will be rewarded regardless.

[calimary]

12. Yep.

It should be a public utility. It should NOT be a for-profit enterprise. As it is - the insurance industry is making money on YOU, on YOUR illness or disability, on YOUR untreated slide toward premature death, and that's how they want it.

NO ONE, NO ENTERPRISE, should be making money off your illness, disability, or your death. Shit, aren't there enough other ways for people and businesses to make money? By NOT being human vultures?

[Moostache]

20. Well....Healthcare is 1/6th of the total economy...

That is quite sobering in and of itself. I agree that for basic heath maintenance (including treatment programs for chronic conditions and addiction) and acute emergency treatment should be 100% accessible by virtue of citizenship or legal status (I also believe everyone here should have a legal path to citizenship)...without the profit motive dictating who lives or dies...but non-essential vanity care (tummy tuck, liposuction, nose jobs for cosmetic purposes, etc.) and things lIke end of life (which is super sensitive and emotionally charged) also must be addressed.

We have a problem that is never discussed freely...what is the exact definition of "healthcare"...Americans tend to consume disease care and conflate that with everything. We need to focus more resources on disease prevention and early treatments than we do and one of the only ways to do that is to tell people what they neef....something every dumb asstuff yahoo in America gets nuts over...

Eliminating the profit motive is a necessary first step...but there are a lot of additional flaws and issues to address as well and the GOP only wants to go backward or muddy the waters as much as possible...it is tragic.

[bitterross]

14. Warren realizes this and is pushing it.

The final outcome of all this BS from the GOP is they may actually hasten single-payer.

[emmadoggy]

16. Dead. Fucking. On.

[Dawson Leery]

18. kick

[brooklynite]

19. You're aware that Single Payer, and most European health care systems don't?

The Government negotiates fees and payments, but, unless the Doctors work for the Government (which Single Payer doesn't assume), they can still work on a for-payment basis by not accepting Government insurance.

[Riverman100]

21. I wish

That I could rec this 1000 times

[ehrnst]

22. Other countries have a combinations of payers - most other countries, in fact.

Even Medicare isn't single payer.

[LiberalLovinLug]

23. "then we should use our government to that purpose"

This is a good way to phrase it. Democrats (not the DINOs) who want to fight for Americans rights to have universal health care should be framing the conversation better. As this statement implies, it is not that big bad government is USING and abusing us....its how we can USE the government for our advantage. It is a centralized organization that citiizens can USE to get things they otherwise cannot. Pooling money together to get the best deal for everyone. I agree, if the word "socialism" is tainted then don't use it.

[Honeycombe8]

28. So true. It's time. We need to quit screwing around with all this & get Medicare for all. nt

[Vinca]

29. Absolutely correct. In fact, the entire "healthcare bill" fiasco has nothing to do with health and

everything to do with how much profit insurance companies will or will not make. Why do we need insurance companies at all? They don't deliver medical care, they shuffle paper for profit.

[onlyadream]

30. Just said the same to a couple I met in a park.

They didn't come out and say it, but they liked trump, I could tell they way they talked. They hated the ACA, and yet they are on Medicaid. They have no clue what the GOP has planned for people like them.

[The Wizard]

31. The simple solution

Remove the words "Upon reaching age 65" from the Medicare Act.

[Johonny]

32. The general GOP fear is that the ACA's medicare-medicaid expansion will

eventually expand to become universal health care...I.E. eventually most Americans will qualify. Sort of like how those covered by social security became essentially everyone. This is why the GOP's plan attacks those expansions.

[Heartstrings]

34. Spot on, kentuck!

[TomCADem]

35. False Equivalency

nt

[bresue]

36. "An American Sickness" by Elisabeth Rosenthal

Interview as to why health care costs are so out of control in the USA. Very interesting!

[MadDAsHell]

37. Agree, which is why the ACA was so baffling. Dems literally FURTHER ENTRENCHED the broken system.

How do you spend decades railing against the inefficient employer-based approach to health insurance, and then when given the chance to reform it, literally MANDATE the thing you said you were against all these years???

Real reform takes real courage; the ACA showed none and set the possibility of single payer back decades, in my opinion.

[BrooklynTech]

38. Amen!!

I have long contended that health care should be a not-for-profit venture, and have long advocated that there should be strict price controls on all aspects of the health care segment of our economy. I have nothing against capitalism, in theory. But there is one place where capitalism should be banned -- anything pertaining to the provision of health care.

I watch a lot of baseball. And in just about every ballpark there are signs advertising the services of hospitals. I've even seen signs that read "Acme Hospital -- Official hospital of the New England Kings". This is downright sickening (no pun intended) and underscores just how twisted the current health care for profit system is.

It'll happen some day, but not in our lifetimes -- we need to implement a system where no one makes a buck through the provision of health care, and that, of course, includes pharmaceuticals.

[citizen blues]

39. This is spot on!

And a point I've been making for a long time.

[B Stieg]

40. Does the market explain why my diabetic test strips...

which I use twice a day, every day, had a co-pay of $0 under last year's insurance provider (Blue Shield) and $45 under this year's (Anthem)? The insurance is the same (Blue Cross), but, apparently, there are middle men (Pharmacy Benefit Managers-PBM's) who negotiate prices between insurance companies and drug and medical tech corporations who can drive prices and co-pays through the roof! (http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/294025-how-pbms-make-the-drug-price-problem-worse)

So where are the "moderating influences and cool breezes" of the "free market?"

Smells more like shit to me!

[Nitram]

41. No, healthcare could be fixed. The rise in costs decreased significantly under Obamacare despite

the handicaps Republicans created for the plan. The next step would be controlling drug costs, and the government has the power to do that if Republicans will let it.

[Initech]

42. Amen!!!!

[c-rational]

43. Agreed!

Medicare for all. It has been too long without any input on how to solve our national problem by the AMA or the insurance companies. Let’s solve it for them. Having 18% of our GDP go to our health care outcome is unacceptable. The problem has never been addressed truthfully. Thanks MSM. I say we pull 10% from the military budget and build national medical schools with applicants accepted on merit and graduating without debt they work in public health clinics for a reasonable salary. We should not be looking to make money off our fellow Americans sickness. Also, when our % of GDP rises this high is does affect our national security. This involves war powers act. Is not this how the interstate highway system was built – so we could move military items around this country quickly. I would have initially said improve the ACA but at this juncture even it were improved and included a public option, private insurance could not compete, nor should it in a so called Christian Country.